Legal Usable information?

[buddyshah]

At our local club this bidding took place.

Both partnerships on table was new.

North dealer and opens bidding

N E S W

1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠

3♥ pass 3♠ pass

3NT pass 4♦ pass

4♥ pass 4NT pass

5♣*pass# 5♥ pass

6♥ p p p

 

Playing without screen Open and loud enquiry by Ease about 5♣bid, South thought for a while and replied 0314, North having thought they are played 1430 raised 5♥ to 6 . Coontract 6!H making 7.

 

Diretor was called and director ruled against 6♥ bid. unauthorised information.

 

Is this really unauthorised information? or it is legal usable information coming to north by Enthusiatic east .

[campboy]

It's really unauthorised information. It came from South, not East; the fact that East asked is irrelevant.

[CamHenry]

As Campboy says, it's unauthorised.

 

However, there may be no adjustment necessary - it's a fairly common agreement that after a 5♣ or 5♦ response, 5M means "raise if you have the higher number". If the person who bid 6♥ here had 4 keycards, then I rule no adjustment.

[barmar]

That only works for the responder to Blackwood, not the asker, as in this case.

[aguahombre]

As Campboy says, it's unauthorised.

 

However, there may be no adjustment necessary - it's a fairly common agreement that after a 5♣ or 5♦ response, 5M means "raise if you have the higher number".  If the person who bid 6♥ here had 4 keycards, then I rule no adjustment.

there is also a fairly common agreement that, if you don't know whether partner has 1 or 4 (or zero or three), you shouldn't have asked in the first place ---and you are already in deep trouble if he has the lower amount.

 

So, using 5M to ask which, becomes just plain silly. 5M is a signoff if that is the major to be played. Raising it implies UI, or an earlier misbid.

[campboy]

Seriously, suppose we have agreed hearts and I have four keycards. I respond 5♣ to RKCB and partner bids 5♥. Is it conceivable that partner wants to play there if I have four rather than one? He hasn't even asked for the queen with 5♦, so four keycards and the queen of trumps isn't enough for him. So he's got, like, minus one keycard?

[jdonn]

Seriously, suppose we have agreed hearts and I have four keycards. I respond 5♣ to RKCB and partner bids 5♥. Is it conceivable that partner wants to play there if I have four rather than one? He hasn't even asked for the queen with 5♦, so four keycards and the queen of trumps isn't enough for him. So he's got, like, minus one keycard?

Or he is one of those players who bids keycard then signs off in 5 missing only 1, which is certainly not something I'll let his partner overrule based on UI.

[campboy]

I am happy to say I don't know any players like that :)

[blackshoe]

As I learned RKCB, it is a basic part of the system that if asker signs off at the 5 level after an ambiguous key card answer, replier with the higher number of key cards is supposed to bid six. Apparently the argument goes that even with that agreement, replier having UI from a slow 5 bid is presumed to have a logical alternative call in pass. I'm not at all sure that I buy that. OTOH, it's the kind of agreement that is frequently not well documented (on the card or in system notes brought to the table, take your pick). So I might rule on the basis of insufficient evidence that such is their agreement, while I would be reluctant, given good evidence that it is their agreement, to rule pass an LA — which would mean bidding on is fine.

[aguahombre]

I think we are forgetting the post. The responder to blackwood learned that he had responded differently than what was their agreement. And he found this out via UI. It is not a 3-key ambiguity. It is the difference between having shown 3 or having shown four --- or the difference between having shown zero or having shown one. There is no 5M which says "bid on if you have misbid, and learned about it via a question."

[blackshoe]

I think we need to know how many key cards he actually had, and why he bid six.

[jdonn]

Apparently the argument goes that even with that agreement, replier having UI from a slow 5 bid is presumed to have a logical alternative call in pass.

I have never heard anyone make that argument and I can't imagine it. I believe the argument goes that you don't just assume they have such an agreement.

 

I mean look at one of the first replies.

it's a fairly common agreement that after a 5♣ or 5♦ response, 5M means "raise if you have the higher number". If the person who bid 6♥ here had 4 keycards, then I rule no adjustment.

Since there exists such a fairly common agreement we rule on that basis? Uhhh....

[bluejak]

Just as bridge judgement applies to most other UI rulings, I believe it applies to Hesitation Blackwood sequences. After a response showing 0 or 3, despite the statement earlier in the thread that people should not be in an ambiguous situation, it is a fact that people sometimes are. How do I know it to be a fact? Experience at my table, by both sides. In some situations I think it obvious to progress with 3 - for example if you opened a weak no-trump - in other cases far less so - perhaps if you opened 1 of a suit and have cue-bid. I have also played against people who have on their SC that they progress with 3 as a matter of system: obviously they will progress despite UI.

 

But I think 1 or 4 is different: it is a very rare sequence where a player with 4 will feel this is not enough for partner, and despite UI it would be normal to allow it. But each case is looked at on its merits. If a player has opened 2♣, found a fit, partner asks and signs off after 4, why shod you go on? Perhaps the one time you should is if hearts is agreed and you have the ♥Q and you play 30/41: partner has no room to ask for it so this sequence suggests that is the problem.

 

But we do not rule on the basis of a general agreement held by other people. We try to find out what agreements this pair have, look at the logic of the situation, and then discover what the LAs are. We do not follow an overall precept.

[Trinidad]

My own 2 cents:

 

If players are so smart that they put on their CC that they will bid on with 3 or 4 after hesitation Blackwood (4NT-5♣;... 5♥-6♥) then they should be smart enough to do their thinking before they bid 4NT.

 

Furthermore, you can put a rule on your CC: "We bid on with 3 keycards."

 

What do you do in the following case:

2♣-2♦ (strong-waiting)

2♥-3♥

3♠-4NT (cue, RKCB)

5♣-5♥ (0 or 3, sign off)

 

Anybody who would bid 6♥ with 3 keycards is a masochist.

 

Conclusion: I don't believe in people who put such rules on their CC (there usually has been a reason why it is mentioned there in the first place). I believe in people who think what to do with the responses before they ask for aces.

 

Rik

[Pict]

It is not against the rules to have sub-optimal agreements.

 

It's not even against the rules to ignore your agreements when an unforeseen situation arises.

 

So if opponents have an agreement (written) that they must bid on with 3 over a potential sign-off, that's their choice.

 

It has become a more common agreement lately in EBU-land because of discussion about hesitation Blackwood.

[peachy]

My own 2 cents:

 

If players are so smart that they put on their CC that they will bid on with 3 or 4 after hesitation Blackwood (4NT-5♣;... 5♥-6♥) then they should be smart enough to do their thinking before they bid 4NT.

 

Furthermore, you can put a rule on your CC: "We bid on with 3 keycards."

 

What do you do in the following case:

2♣-2♦ (strong-waiting)

2♥-3♥

3♠-4NT (cue, RKCB)

5♣-5♥ (0 or 3, sign off)

 

Anybody who would bid 6♥ with 3 keycards is a masochist.

 

Conclusion: I don't believe in people who put such rules on their CC (there usually has been a reason why it is mentioned there in the first place). I believe in people who think what to do with the responses before they ask for aces.

 

Rik

Your example is weird. First: Weak hand does not ask a 2C opener how many aces/keycards opener has. Second: If three is not enough for slam when partner is asking, then why did partner ask. Third: How can opener have a 2C opening with zero keys?

 

I am one of those "people who you do not believe". I have the explicit agreement that holding 3 instead of 0, or 4 instead of 1, going on is automatic. I put this in all cards after an adverse ruling in 2002 in ACBL Regional in AZ, where my partner hesitated before ostensibly signing off. He was thinking and counting my values whether it was possible that I had zero instead of three (this is neither here nor there, there _was_ a hesitation, so the reason for it is irrelevant).

[campboy]

If players are so smart that they put on their CC that they will bid on with 3 or 4 after hesitation Blackwood (4NT-5♣;... 5♥-6♥) then they should be smart enough to do their thinking before they bid 4NT.

The flaw in this argument is that only one player needs to be smart enough to say "we should put this on the CC"; both players need to be smart to ensure that they do their thinking before RKCB :o

 

With a former partner I had the explicit agreement that you always go on with 4 and a list of situations in which to pass with 3 ("I've opened 2C" was one of them :)).